header-logo header-logo

25 November 2010
Issue: 7443 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Practice

C v D and another [2010] EWHC 2940 (Ch), [2010] All ER (D) 176 (Nov)

A time-limited offer was not capable of being a CPR 36 offer, as the structure of Pt 36 in general—and the provisions of CPR 36.2(2) and CPR 36.14(6) in particular—established that an offer had to be capable of acceptance unless and until withdrawn by service of a notice within CPR 36.9(2). CPR 36.9(2) provided a strong indicator of the sort of offer with which Pt 36 was concerned. The indicator was that it was an offer which was at least capable of being withdrawn and was not one which came to an end according to its own terms. Under CPR 36.14 there was a severe costs sanction placed on a defendant who did not accept a Pt 36 offer where there was judgment against the defendant which was at least as advantageous to the claimant as the proposals contained in a claimant’s Pt 36 offer.

That sanction did not apply where the Pt 36 offer had been withdrawn or where the terms had been

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll